Radiocommunications (Body Scanning – Aviation Security) Class Licence 2018

Class licence. Under the Radiocommunications Act 1992, a class licence is a legislative instrument that authorises the operation of specified radiocommunications devices by any person who complies with the conditions set out in the licence. No application is required; the authorisation exists automatically as long as the conditions are satisfied. This contrasts with an apparatus licence, which is issued to a named person for a particular device at a particular location. The class licence model shifts the regulatory burden from prior approval to ongoing compliance, and it passes the cost of ensuring compliance from the regulator to the operator.

Body scanner. Defined in section 4 as a scanner that is capable of detecting metallic and non‑metallic items on a person by using millimetre‑wave radiofrequency technology. The definition explicitly states that a body scanner is, or includes, a radiocommunications transmitter. That characterisation brings the device within the scope of the Act and the class licence regime. Millimetre‑wave frequencies (typically above 24 GHz) are used because they can penetrate clothing but reflect from the skin and from objects concealed on the body, allowing imaging without ionising radiation.

Authorised person. The term is defined by inclusion. The definition lists four categories: (a) a screening authority; (b) a screening officer; (c) a registered training organisation; (d) a person employed by or contracted to a registered training organisation. The first two are defined by reference to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. A screening authority is the entity responsible for security at a security‑controlled airport (for example, the airport operator or a contracted security provider). A screening officer is an individual who has been authorised to conduct screening under that Act. The inclusion of registered training organisations and their employees or contractors reflects the need to train screening officers on real equipment without requiring a separate licence for training operations.

ARPANSA Standard. The Radiation Protection Standard for Limiting Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields - 100 kHz to 300 GHz (2021), published by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, or any replacement standard. The class licence incorporates this standard by reference and allows it to change over time without amending the instrument itself (see section 5). That creates a moving target for operators, who must keep track of updates to the ARPANSA standard.

Security controlled airport. Defined by the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. The class licence only authorises operation at airports that have been declared security controlled airports. That excludes other potential locations such as military airfields, domestic terminals at non‑security airports, or freight facilities.

Equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP). A measure of the power that would be radiated by an isotropic antenna to achieve the same signal strength in the direction of the antenna’s main lobe. It accounts for both the transmitter power and the antenna gain. The power limits are expressed as instantaneous EIRP and power spectral density, which together constrain both peak power and the distribution of power across frequency.

Screening authorities and screening officers are the primary beneficiaries of the class licence. They can operate body scanners without applying for individual apparatus licences, saving time and fees. However, they absorb the compliance burden of ensuring that every scanner they use meets the frequency, power, indoor, exposure, and interference conditions. That burden falls disproportionately on smaller screening authorities that may lack in‑house radiofrequency engineering expertise. The class licence also affects airport operators, who must ensure that body scanners are installed indoors at security‑controlled airports and that cumulative exposure from multiple scanners does not exceed the ARPANSA public exposure limit. That cumulative condition (section 7(4)) imposes a duty to manage the aggregate electromagnetic environment, which may require periodic measurements or modelling.

Registered training organisations (RTOs) and their employees or contractors are authorised to operate body scanners only for the purpose of training screening officers. They face an additional condition: they must have a written agreement with a screening authority requiring them to provide training as part of a VET course. That condition ties training operations to a formal contractual relationship, which may be burdensome for smaller RTOs trying to enter the market. It also creates a dependency: if the agreement lapses or is terminated, the RTO cannot lawfully operate the scanner, even for existing students.

Body scanner manufacturers are indirectly affected. The class licence sets technical parameters that scanners must meet to be operated without an individual licence. Manufacturers must design equipment to operate within the specified frequency bands and power limits. Because the class licence does not require type‑approval, manufacturers do not need to seek ACMA certification for the device under this instrument, but they must still ensure the device complies with the broader technical standards under the Radiocommunications Act (such as the Radiocommunications (Labelling) Notice). The class licence therefore reduces barriers to market entry for compliance‑compliant devices but creates a risk for purchasers who buy non‑compliant equipment.

Individuals being screened are the end users subject to the millimetre‑wave exposure. They have no direct rights or duties under the class licence, but the exposure condition indirectly protects their safety. The reference to general public exposure limits (rather than occupational limits) means that the standard is set for uncontrolled exposure, which is appropriate for passengers who may be screened repeatedly.

Other radiocommunications users in the 24.25-30 GHz and 67-80 GHz bands are affected because the class licence authorises additional transmitters that share these bands. The no‑interference condition (section 7(5)) protects incumbents, but the note makes clear that incumbents have no reciprocal obligation to protect the body scanner. This asymmetrical interference regime imposes a cost on airport operators who may find their scanners disrupted by other devices.

The class licence confers a right to operate a body scanner without an individual licence, provided the operator is an authorised person and the conditions are met. That right is not absolute; it exists only while each condition is satisfied. If any condition is breached, the authorisation ceases, and the operator may be committing an offence under section 46 of the Radiocommunications Act (operating without a licence). The burden is on the operator to demonstrate ongoing compliance.

Duty to operate within frequency bands. Section 7(1) requires operation only in 24.25-30 GHz or 67-80 GHz. The scanner must be designed to operate exclusively within those ranges, or the operator must configure it to do so. Variable‑frequency devices that can exceed the limits cannot be used unless they are locked to the permitted bands.

Duty to comply with power limits. Section 7(2) sets both instantaneous EIRP and power spectral density limits. These are relatively low numbers. For context, -10 dBm is 0.1 milliwatt; 7 dBm is about 5 milliwatts. Exceeding these limits, even momentarily, would breach the condition and invalidate the authorisation.

Duty to operate indoors. Section 7(3) mandates indoor operation at a security‑controlled airport. This restricts deployment to enclosed spaces, which may include screening portals or dedicated rooms. It prevents use in open airport concourses or outdoor checkpoint areas. The rationale is to contain the radiofrequency energy and reduce the risk of interference to and from external devices, but it also limits operational flexibility.

Duty not to exceed ARPANSA exposure limits. Section 7(4) prohibits operation if the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the body scanner, or by a group of body scanners that includes the scanner, exceeds the general public exposure limits specified in the ARPANSA Standard. This condition applies at the aggregate level: if multiple scanners are running in proximity, the combined field must be below the limit. Operators must assess the cumulative exposure, not just individual device compliance. The ARPANSA Standard is updated from time to time, and section 5(b) incorporates any replacement standard, meaning the operator must monitor those changes.

Duty not to cause interference. Section 7(5) prohibits operation that would cause interference to the operation of radiocommunications services, either alone or in combination with other transmitters. This is a strict and continuous obligation. It is not limited to interference to licensed services; it covers any radiocommunications service, which could include other class‑licensed devices or receivers. The operator must take active steps to avoid causing interference, which may involve site surveys, power reduction, or coordination with other users.

Additional duty for RTOs. Section 8 requires a written agreement between the RTO and a screening authority that obliges the RTO to provide training as part of a VET course. The agreement must be in force at the time of operation. This adds a contractual layer beyond the technical conditions.

The class licence instrument itself does not specify penalties. Penalties arise from the parent Radiocommunications Act 1992. Operating a body scanner without a licence (i.e., outside the class licence authorisation) is an offence under section 46. The maximum penalty is not stated in the source, but under the Act it can be significant, potentially including imprisonment for serious cases. Additionally, operating a device that causes harmful interference can attract enforcement under Part 8 of the Act, including directions to cease operation, seizure of equipment, and civil penalties. The ACMA has broad investigatory powers, including the power to enter premises and inspect devices.

Breach of a condition of the class licence is effectively operation without authorisation. If a condition is not met, the class licence does not apply, and the operation is unauthorised. That is the enforcement trigger. The ACMA can issue an infringement notice, seek court orders, or prosecute. The practical risk for airport operators is disruption: if a body scanner causes interference, the ACMA can require immediate shutdown, which could delay passenger screening.

There is no provision for appeals within the class licence itself. Any dispute would be resolved under the Act’s review mechanisms, such as applying to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of an ACMA decision to issue a direction or impose a penalty.

The interference condition (section 7(5)) is particularly hard to enforce because interference can be transient and intermittent. A scanner that passes acceptance testing may later cause interference due to equipment ageing or changes in the local radio environment. The operator bears the risk of such later‑arising non‑compliance.

The class licence is made under section 132 of the Radiocommunications Act 1992. It is a legislative instrument and must be consistent with that Act. It does not override the Act’s provisions on equipment compliance, labelling, or spectrum allocation. For example, a body scanner must still comply with the Radiocommunications (Labelling) Notice if it is a ‘device’ covered by that notice.

The instrument adopts definitions from the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 for ‘screening authority’, ‘screening officer’, and ‘security controlled airport’. That means changes to those definitions in the Aviation Transport Security Act flow through to this instrument (unless the contrary intention appears, but none is indicated). Similarly, ‘registered training organisation’ and ‘VET course’ are defined by reference to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011.

The ARPANSA Standard is incorporated by reference, with the effect that updates to that standard automatically become conditions of the class licence. This cross‑reference avoids the need to remake the instrument whenever the standard changes, but it imposes a monitoring obligation on operators. The standard itself interacts with state and territory workplace health and safety laws, which may impose additional duties on employers to manage radiofrequency exposure for screening officers who work near the scanners.

The no‑interference condition (section 7(5)) interacts with the general law of nuisance and with the spectrum management framework under the Act. The Act provides a regime for dealing with interference that includes a complaints process and formal dispute resolution. The class licence does not affect those provisions; it simply adds a direct condition that if interference occurs, the scanner cannot lawfully operate.

The indoor‑only requirement interacts with local government planning and building approvals for airport infrastructure. Installing body scanners may require development approval, and the class licence does not override those requirements.

The instrument does not interact directly with privacy laws such as the Privacy Act 1988, but body scanners that produce images of individuals may raise separate legal issues about the handling of personal information. That is outside the scope of the class licence.

The source text provides the endnotes structure that would typically list amendment history, but the actual history is not included in the material supplied. The endnotes indicate that a compilation exists, which implies that the instrument has been amended since its original making in 2018. The date in the title is 2018, but the ARPANSA Standard referenced is the 2021 edition, which suggests that the instrument has been amended to update the standard reference. That might have been done by a legislative instrument that varied the class licence. Without seeing the endnotes table, the exact sequence of amendments cannot be determined.

The absence of explicit amendment history in the provided text means that any analysis of past changes is speculative. Operators cannot rely on the instrument remaining static; they must work with the current compilation on the Federal Register of Legislation. A prudent operator would check the compilation history for any amendments to conditions, particularly changes to frequency bands or power limits.

The class licence is a legislative instrument subject to disallowance and sunsetting under the Legislation Act 2003. It may be remade or allowed to expire. As of the text provided, there is no indication of expiry or pending repeal.

The source does not cite any litigation involving this specific class licence. That is not surprising for a relatively niche instrument that has been in force for a few years. Class licences are rarely litigated directly because they are general authorisations; disputes more commonly arise under the parent Act regarding interference or licence conditions. However, potential areas of legal contest could include:

• The meaning of ‘interference’ in section 7(5). The Act defines ‘interference’ broadly, but cases may arise over what constitutes interference to the operation of radiocommunications services and whether transient effects count.
• The cumulative exposure condition in section 7(4). If a group of scanners exceeds the ARPANSA limit, the condition applies to each scanner in the group. That could lead to disputes over liability among multiple operators at the same airport.
• The definition of ‘authorised person’ may be contested if a screening officer is employed by a private contractor rather than directly by the airport operator. The definition uses the Aviation Transport Security Act definitions, which may be subject to interpretation.
• The requirement for a written agreement for RTOs (section 8). Litigation could arise over whether an agreement that does not explicitly require training ‘as part of a VET course’ satisfies the condition.

No reported cases were identified in the source. The first enforcement action or prosecution under this instrument would likely set precedent for interpretation.

Cumulative exposure condition traps the unwary. Section 7(4) says ‘or by a group of body scanners that includes the body scanner’. If a security‑controlled airport installs multiple body scanners in one area, the aggregate exposure must not exceed the ARPANSA public limit. Each operator must ensure that even if its own scanner is compliant, the total with neighbouring scanners is still compliant. That is not a condition that can be independently satisfied; it requires coordination with other operators. An operator could be in breach through no fault of its own if a neighbouring scanner is added or upgraded.

No‑interference duty is absolute and ongoing. Section 7(5) does not contain a reasonableness qualifier. If the body scanner, alone or with others, causes interference, it must not be operated - even if the interference is caused by a third‑party device that should not be operating. The operator must stop using the scanner until the interference is resolved, regardless of fault. That creates operational risk for airports that rely on body scanners for security throughput.

Indoor‑only condition restricts flexibility. Portable or temporary body scanners cannot be used outdoors or in non‑enclosed areas, even if security needs require screening at a remote gate or temporary checkpoint. The condition is tied to the physical location of the airport, not the security function.

Changes to the ARPANSA standard are automatically incorporated. Section 5(b) provides that references to other instruments include those instruments as in force from time to time. If ARPANSA tightens the public exposure limit, the class licence condition tightens immediately without any amending instrument. Operators must monitor the ARPANSA website and update their compliance assessments accordingly.

Training RTOs depend on a continuing contract. Section 8 requires a written agreement with a screening authority that requires the RTO to provide training as part of a VET course. If the screening authority terminates the agreement or does not renew it, the RTO cannot operate the body scanner, even for training that is already underway. That can disrupt vocational training programs.

Body scanners may still require other approvals. The class licence only authorises operation under the Radiocommunications Act. It does not exempt the device from state or territory electrical safety laws, airport security rules, privacy laws, or occupational health and safety duties. Operators cannot assume that the class licence is the only regulatory hurdle.

Equipment compliance with the Act. The body scanner must still comply with the Act’s provisions on interference and technical standards generally. The class licence does not provide immunity from prosecution for operating non‑compliant equipment.

Practical steps for a screening authority or screening officer:

1. Verify the device’s frequency and power settings. Ensure the body scanner can only operate within the permitted bands and cannot exceed the EIRP and power spectral density limits. If the scanner has adjustable settings, lock them to compliant values and document the configuration.

2. Check the installation location. The scanner must be installed indoors at a security‑controlled airport. Verify that the airport is listed as a security controlled airport under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (Gazette notices are published on the Federal Register of Legislation). The room must be fully enclosed; partially open areas do not qualify.

3. Assess aggregate electromagnetic exposure. Obtain the ARPANSA Standard (2021 or current) and calculate or measure the total field strength from all body scanners in the vicinity. This may require an electromagnetic field survey. If multiple scanners are operated, coordinate with the airport operator and other screening authorities to ensure cumulative compliance. Keep records of measurements and calculations.

4. Implement an interference management plan. Identify other radiocommunications services operating in the same frequency bands (24.25-30 GHz and 67-80 GHz) at or near the airport. These may include fixed links, satellite earth stations, or other class‑licensed devices. Develop procedures to detect and resolve interference promptly, including a process to shut down the scanner if interference occurs. Maintain a log of any interference complaints received or made.

5. Monitor the ARPANSA standard for updates. Subscribe to ARPANSA’s notification service or regularly check their website. When a new standard is published, reassess the scanner’s compliance with section 7(4).

6. Train operators on conditions. Screening officers should be instructed that the scanner must not be operated if interference is likely, and that the indoor restriction is mandatory.

For registered training organisations:

7. Executed written agreement. Ensure a written agreement with a screening authority is in force that explicitly requires the RTO to provide training as part of a VET course. The agreement should be reviewed periodically and renewed before expiry. Keep copies of the agreement on file.

8. Confirm the VET course registration. The training must form part of a VET course as defined in the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. Verify that the course is registered with the relevant national regulator.

For all operators:

9. Document compliance. Keep records of device specifications, installation details, exposure assessments, interference logs, and the RTO agreement. This documentation is essential if the ACMA investigates a complaint or conducts an audit.

10. Stay informed of amendments. Check the Federal Register of Legislation periodically for any amending instruments that change the class licence conditions, particularly frequency bands, power limits, or the ARPANSA standard reference.